Features
21st Century Viking: Government overreached with monkey tree fine
In late January, a tree was cut down. This tree happened to be on somebody’s private property, and the property owner is now in trouble with the city because they didn’t get a permit before they cut it down.
Don’t get me wrong – I thought it was a nice tree. But, judging by how many people were outraged by this, it is a perfect example of “not in my backyard” and an opportunity to reflect on the role of government in our lives.
People are so busy getting upset that they haven’t thought to ask the property owner why they cut it down.
People thought the tree was a neighborhood landmark, but it wasn’t on their property.
Does anyone know whether the tree was sick or not? Was it stable? Did tree branches fall off during windstorms? Were its roots messing with the foundation of the house?
Would you want to live a few feet away from a huge tree that could fall on your house and kill you and your family? What if it fell into the street and killed someone?
Why should a property owner be compelled to keep something on their property that was quite possibly a nuisance and a danger to them merely because it brings enjoyment to others?
Regardless of whether the tree was really interesting or not, the fact remains that it was on someone’s private property. Therefore, it was their property, and they could do with it what they wished.
The city issued notices of violation to the property owner and the tree removal company for what happened to the monkey tree.
The city says that trees on private property that are considered exceptional can only be removed after the Department of Planning and Development “assesses” them.
What is even worse is that they want the property owner to replant a tree with a similar canopy cover.
What if the property owner wants to actually look out their window and not see a huge tree? Maybe they wanted to see a rosebush or a modern art sculpture instead.
This is a textbook case of government overreach on the part of the city. They have no right to tell anyone how they should landscape their property.
You may not agree with the property owner’s aesthetic choices, but they own their land, and last time I checked, the City of Seattle wasn’t a homeowner’s association.
I hope the act of cutting down of this tree without permission will make everyone think about what are the necessary and proper functions of government.
This isn’t just about a tree being cut down; it’s about whether the government has a right to interfere with what citizens do on and to their private property.
Do you have a column suggestion or a comment for Brian Le Blanc? Leave a comment on this story or reach him directly at brianleblanc76@yahoo.com.
Most Viewed
Submissions
Please send us your news tips, photos or ideas of how we can better cover your neigborhood.
Email us at tips@ballardnewstribune.com
Follow us on Twitter!
Receive updates on news and events in the Ballard neighborhood via Twitter!
Trees and rights
Good grief, Brian, do you really think government - "we the people" - has no business regulating what can be done on a single family lot? That owning a lot should give you the right to do whatever you please? Do you think all zoning laws should be struck down?
The real question here is whether the rules regarding specimen trees, and the City's enforcement of them, are reasonable. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a homeowner to check on whether there are any rules about removing large trees, or for a tree removal company to know the rules and advise a homeowner of them. I think the real value of situations like these if public education, so I think a very modest fine and flexible requirements for replacing the ecological function of the tree would be reasonable.
You ask some very good questions in our opinion piece, but how about doing some real journalism and researching the answers. You imply that the tree was a threat to the property and passersby, but was it in fact? Others have tried to get the homeowners perspective - did you?
Instead of fanning the flames with provocative but vacuous property rights rhetoric, reiterating much of the shallow discussion that has already filled various blogs, how about giving the story some more meat and tackling the real issues of responsible property stewardship and how to preserve significant ecological function in an urban environment.
Do I have the right to dump
Do I have the right to dump raw sewage on my "private" property in the middle of Ballard? Can you build a nuclear power plant on it?
When you buy property in a place, you have to follow the laws there.
Insurance Liability
While people may be grieving about the loss of the tree it may well have been due to the same reason we lost a monkey tree here on Vashon Island. Shortly after a new restaurant (named The Monkey Tree) opened on the parcel where the tree was located the tree was taken down by the landlord due risk assessed by the insurance company.
If the city considered it a specimen tree the question is did the city notify the owner that it was such a tree and the removal governed by city ordinance? Is the city willing to provide insurance for the risk of such a large specimin tree? If the city wants to have such oridnances it needs to take some responsibiltiy. The city puts up signs to enforce parking - why doesn't it take the time to place signage explaining the importance of specimin trees and the ord. number saying the tree is protected.
RE: Trees and rights
Well said Guest-- I read all about this over a month ago on the Ballard Blogs, and the opinions in this article are nothing new....Give us more information on the exact laws and situation surround this, not more arguments from one of the side of "it's their yard" or "save trees."
Thank you for writing about
Thank you for writing about this. I read about the story on MyBallard and am curious to see how it is resolved.
I appreciate how you worded the following: "They have no right to tell anyone how they should landscape their property." Of course, it didn't stop one commenter from exaggerating to include disposal of raw sewage, but one would think we could at least reach consensus on property rights with regard to landscaping choice. Sadly, it seems even that is a stretch.
To those who agree that the city was within its rights to exert force here, at what point is it acceptable to stop? Should I need a permit to paint my house, plant a garden or trim my hedges? How much further do we need to go to cross the "ludicrous" line?
If the city wants to lay claim to something on your property, it needs to compensate you for this, plain and simple. This is, after all, the 5th Amendment to the Constitution (what a quaint document!). For those who actually care about the history of this particular ordinance, it was enacted last year, probably as the pet project of some egomaniac in the Department of Planning and Development. It is entirely possible that the homeowner bought the property with no such restrictions yet in place, and had the rug pulled out from under him.
It is admirable that you have opened Pandora's Box of property rights questions, and I hope that it causes at least a few people to challenge their assumptions about what is just in our society.
re: Do I have the right to dump
"Do I have the right to dump raw sewage on my "private" property in the middle of Ballard? Can you build a nuclear power plant on it?"
Totally with you, kurisu. It's a slippery slope. First they let landowners cut their own trees down, next they will be cool with them dumping raw sewage on their own property. We all know that's what people really are angling for here. Thank god we have the government to save us from ourselves.
Post new comment